Frugal Ethics 101

[sweeps]

Re: Frugal Ethics 101

Sweeps,

I am sure his agreement stipulates he has the right to re-transmit the internet - or else, routers would be illegal like radar detectors in some states.

If he is transmitting, how can a company, Verizon or otherwise, impose a contractual obligation on the person on who can and who cannot receive it?

Answer: IMO, they can't.

It's an unreasonable clause and wouldn't hold up in court.

The only way possibly is that sometimes transmissions are declared the property of the entity broadcasting (the NFL) so a person re-broadcasting without permission can get in trouble.

But that's the transmissions themselves, not the medium (TV).

My neighbor cannot get in trouble if I receive his open transmissions and he is aware and consents to it.

If this is a problem then, they have to outlaw re-transmitting internet waves altogether and making wireless routers illegal.

Hey if you want to do it, do it. You're probably not going to get caught, neither you nor your neighbor will likely notice a difference in download speeds, and nobody's going to go to jail over it.

The question was it is unethical. The answer is yes. You are purposely cheating the internet provider out of subscriber fees. End of story.

[tinapbeana]

Re: Frugal Ethics 101

sweeps: i wasn't trying to jump on you so please don't take it that way. i think it's a difference in perspective, "if it's not explicityly prohibited, it's allowed" versus "if it's not explicity allowed, it's prohibited". kinda like the age old constitution debate, only a much lower level when it comes to something that is paid by volume, i personally do believe that if it's not prohibited, it's allowed. for instance, the phone company i worked for offered unlimited LD for a fixed rate. this was a cost effective plan because the average consumer used approximately 500 min per month. with that said, i've seen accounts that use 10,000 minutes per month. higher than the normal or expected usage, but not prohibited by the general service agreement.

scanner: it really may well depend on the terms and conditions of your neighbor's internet service provider. for instance, mine includes the following clause:

9. SECURITY

Customer is solely responsible for the security of any device connected to the Service, including any data stored on that device. Charter recommends that Customer take appropriate security precautions for any systems connected to the Service. Customer is responsible for securing any wireless (WiFi) networks connected to the Service. Any wireless network installed by Customer or a Charter representative that is unsecured or “open” and connected to the Charter network will be deemed to be operating as an ISP and subject to the prohibition on commercial use set forth in Section 1 above.

[sweeps]

Re: Frugal Ethics 101

No offense taken. Re: the unlimited long distance, if one household used 10,000 minutes a month, that's not unethical at all. Their plan allows that.

However, if that household let others avoid paying the phone company by sharing their unlimited minutes with the rest of the neighborhood, then again that is unethical.

[Scanner]

Re: Frugal Ethics 101

Sweeps,

You are getting too sensitive - you just haven't proved it's unethical as far as the ISP goes.

I haven't "cheated" anybody out of anything, other than the neighbor.

America is kind of weird place in that you think I have some ethical obligation to worry about the variable and fixed expenses of Verizon? Kinda like a weird version of Corporate Welfare?

I have no ethical obligation to Verizon.

What you are then suggesting is that it would be unethical for my development to form a community center with a TV and cable connection because it would harm Sony, Zeneith, and Comcast because everybody may throw their TV and cable connections out and all of us watch Jeapordy every night at 7:30.

Pooling resources, either formally or informally, is not illegal or unethical - in fact, it's smart business.

It's part of frugality.

My neighbor's welfare - yes. That is the ethical dilemma and the posters have satisfied me in that it may bring harm, however miniscule to him by affecting his internet performance he paid in good faith for.

I am not, however, worried about any ethical violation to Verizon.

BTW, this is interesting stuff - a little company years ago decided that businesses were being charged too much money for long distance. So, in an effort to "bypass" Bell (the Bells may be before your time - there used to be one phone co.) and compete, they put "microwave transmissions" on top of their high rises and bypassed Bell/AT&T for long distance.

Their long distance bills were 1/10th of what Bell/AT&T charged.

If AT&T had left well enough alone, nothing much probably would have happened other than a loss of a few million per year.

But they cried "foul and unethical."

So the judges examined AT&T's practice and found yes, indeed you were charging too much and they could see the business's point.

So, they said, "Gee, your a monopoly" and broke them up.

The company was called MCI (Microwave Communications Incorporated) and it changed the face of telecommunications and probably laid down the foundation for the formation of the internet.

A company is not afforded the same ethical rights as an individual is. A corporation, although recognized as a seperate entity by the IRS, does not eat, breath, feel pain.

[sweeps]

Re: Frugal Ethics 101

A company is not afforded the same ethical rights as an individual is. A corporation, although recognized as a seperate entity by the IRS, does not eat, breath, feel pain.

Therefore stealing a candy bar from Walmart is not unethical. They won't notice it in their bottom line, right?

[tinapbeana]

Re: Frugal Ethics 101

So, they said, "Gee, your a monopoly" and broke them up.

The company was called MCI (Microwave Communications Incorporated) and it changed the face of telecommunications and probably laid down the foundation for the formation of the internet.

A company is not afforded the same ethical rights as an individual is. A corporation, although recognized as a seperate entity by the IRS, does not eat, breath, feel pain.

sorry for the OT, but here goes:

having worked for MCI, i can agree that they were adventurous and 'david vs goliath' in spirit. once upon a time.... then worldcom came in, enticed by the fact that MCI owns the backbone of UUNET (THE internet).

since then, SBC bought ameritech, pacbell, nevada bell, southwestern bell, southern new england telephone, and then AT&T (and promptly adopted their name). they've also just now bought bellsouth.

on the other hand, verizon (formerly nynex and bell atlantic) bought GTE and MCI as of january '06 (including all of our govenment contracts, and oh did i mention the internet backbone too?).

the layoffs began and never quite ended, and the country is left with 2 major phone carriers: AT&T and verizon (unless you count QWEST, and they're in enough financial trouble that you ought not bother). these 2 carriers now control the bulk of the nation's phone service (residential, commercial, and government), UUNET, and the majority of internet access. oh, and don't forget wireless, since AT&T and verizon are also cingular and verizon wireless... and verizon is stepping into the cable arena with FIOS.

my whole point here is that, sadly, the fight MCI gave AT&T for fair pricing and good services was valiant, but the change they effected has all but completely melted away, replaced by 2 giant conglomerates who between them control the vast majority of all communications in both the public and private sector. when you take into consideration the variety of media they're involved in, both AT&T and verizon probably control each control a larger market than the original AT&T ever did.

[Scanner]

Re: Frugal Ethics 101

Therefore stealing a candy bar from Walmart is not unethical. They won't notice it in their bottom line, right?

No, notice I didn't say that it's impossible to have an ethical violation against a company - I am just saying they are not the same as a person.

[sweeps]

Re: Frugal Ethics 101

You're right, tina, but this is a problem whenever infrastructure is involved. A true market just can't exist when you're talking about things with extremely high barriers to entry. Telecommunications, utilities, transportation, mail delivery, air travel, things like that.

The FCC tried to bring competition into the telecom industry by using things like unbundling and number portability, but honestly it's all a mess with numerous conflicts of interest.

So that leaves you stuck somewhere between a slow, cumbersome (yet reliable) government-run program and a completely chaotic true market system. SBC and Verizon have found the best way to succeed is to get bigger and bigger and put as much money in politicians' pockets as possible. Based on their latest earnings figures, it seems to be working.

[Scanner]

Re: Frugal Ethics 101

Tina,

Such is the nature of utlities - they get "broken up", then get bought out and head towards monopolies and get broken up again. It's the nature of the beast.

And maybe SBC or Verizon will have to be broken up again - it's the final consequence of capitalism unfortunately. Smart leaders will "divest" and sell off companies to other companies to avoid this, rather than get bigger and bigger.

It brings up a whole other ethical dilemma - if I own all the gas stations in the US (or other utililty), do I have the ethical right to charge what I want? I worked hard to bring it to you, I own the gas, and am selling it to you - I should be able to charge what I want, right? Even if it is $5.00 above cost per gallon?

Apparently not. . .or so says the FTC. . .they seem to agree that companies do not necessarily have the same rights as the welfare of the individual or even the welfare of the public at large. One may say that is a basic obligation of the gov't - to insure fair trade and that no monopolies exist and free competition reigns.

I guess we are way drifting off topic. . .still interesting though.

[sweeps]

Re: Frugal Ethics 101

It brings up a whole other ethical dilemma - if I own all the gas stations in the US (or other utililty), do I have the ethical right to charge what I want? I worked hard to bring it to you, I own the gas, and am selling it to you - I should be able to charge what I want, right? Even if it is $5.00 above cost per gallon?

Good question. This is one of those where you have competing ethical issues. Do the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few? Mr. Spock seems to think so.

[Broken Arrow]

Re: Frugal Ethics 101

On tech forums, this tends to get quite a lively discussion going.

Eh, I'm not going to weigh in my usual opinionated self on this one, mostly because most ground has already been covered.

However, for those who have a wireless router, and would like to prevent pirates from boarding, I highly recommend turning on encryption and changing the default password. (And preferably using more advanced encryption than WEP if it's available.)

Yarr!

[pearlieq]

Re: Frugal Ethics 101

It's always amazing to see the contortions we're willing to do to justify.

[disneysteve]

Re: Frugal Ethics 101

This whole situation could be eliminated if customers were required to secure their networks. At home, I can detect 5 or 6 wireless networks coming from my neighbors homes, but almost all of them are secured, so I couldn't steal their signal if I wanted to. Same at work. I just checked and right now I'm detecting 2 other networks. Both are secured.

If the ISPs are concerned about this, they should just require home networks to be secured.

[tinapbeana]

Re: Frugal Ethics 101

This whole situation could be eliminated if customers were required to secure their networks. At home, I can detect 5 or 6 wireless networks coming from my neighbors homes, but almost all of them are secured, so I couldn't steal their signal if I wanted to. Same at work. I just checked and right now I'm detecting 2 other networks. Both are secured.

If the ISPs are concerned about this, they should just require home networks to be secured.

i agree that the network should be secured (everyone knows they track kiddie porn by IP address and someone on your wireless network has the same IP as you, right?). my ISP 'recommends it' and says any unsecured wireless network will be treated as an ISP and no longer treated as a residential service. the kicker? when they set up internet service in someone's home, their policy is to not handle or setup the wireless router in any way. they will only refer you to the manufacturer's website...

[GreyhoundLoner]

My Daddy used to say if you have to stop and thing about it, the answer is probably "don't do it".